19951017_2.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 1995 - 1:30 P.M.
In attendance at this time were Commissioners Ralph Nelson, Marsha H. Smith and Dennis Hansen and staff members Brad Purdy, Scott Woodbury, Syd Lansing, Madonna Faunce, Bev Barker, Ron Law, Susan Hamlin, Bill Eastlake, Randy Lobb, Joe Cusick, Gary Richardson, Triva Pline, Tonya Clark, Weldon Stutzman, Lynn Anderson, Birdelle Brown, Stephanie Miller and Don Howell.  Also in attendance were Skip Worthan and Mike McGrath of Intermountain Gas Company and Jim Wozniak of U S West.
Commission President Ralph Nelson called the meeting to order.
First item for discussion was:
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated October 17, 1995.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approve RCD Agenda.  Commissioner Smith seconded the motion - carried.
2.  Birdelle Brown’s October 13, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Potlatch Telephone Advice dated October 12, 1995 to provide for Promotional Offerings; to be effective November 1, 1995 and
3.  Birdelle Brown’s October 13, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Troy Telephone Advice dated October 12, 1995 to provide for Promotional Offerings; to be effective November 1, 1995,
were considered together.
Commissioner Hansen made a motion to approved the two filings.  Commissioner Smith seconded the motion; carried.
4.  Scott Woodbury’s October 13, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. INT-G-95-4  (Intermountain Gas Company) Industrial Transportation Tariffs  T-1 Tariff Change; T-2 New Tariff.
Scott commented that staff recommended a couple of changes and the company agreed to those.  Also Northwest Natural Gas Users intervened and commented.  Think Commission should grant intervention in case of reconsideration.
Commissioner Smith said she would grant the intervention and make the two changes; November 1, 1995 effective date.
Commissioners Nelson and Hansen concurred.
5.  Weldon Stutzman’s October 16, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Cambridge Telephone Company Rate Increase to Meet Universal Service Fund Requirements.  Case No. CAM-T-95-1.
Weldon Stutzman said the second notice went out September 26, proposing implementation incremental over a 3 year period.
Comment period will not be up until 5:00 tonight.  But since there are no more October decision meetings, put it on today’s agenda.  First question is:  should it be considered before the comment period is over?
Commissioner Smith said her concern was:  company was not starting to notify customers until yesterday.  Therefore they might think the Commission doesn’t feel we care, if we act before they have effective notice.  Would have no objection to handling this in a week or two when she is gone.  Don’t anticipate anything would come up as this is necessary to obtain eligibility in USF, but think it would be unfortunate for people to have comments to make and the Commission has already made up its mind.
Commissioner Nelson said the company should have given notice before this week.  Holding this open for comment is fair to the customers.
**Check the calendar and schedule something for the end of the month to analyze what we have received.  Item will be held at this time.
5A.  Joe Cusick’s September 26, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Follow-up on U S West Communications’ Compliance with IDAPA31.41.01.503.03 Rule Requiring That 90% of all Out-of-Service Troubles Be Cleared Within 24 Hours.  (Held from 9-29-95 Decision Meeting).
CommissionerNelson said Commission has received comments on this decision memo since it was held two meetings ago;  and after consideration of all the comments, would like to propose that we handle North Idaho and South Idaho somewhat differently.  Have to respond to the fact that it has been since March when this was last addressed and the company has still not adhered to the rule since we addressed it last time.  It appears that there has been some progress and the progress will continue.  Would like to propose that going forward and including October, that for Southern Idaho for any month including October that the company does not meet the 90% compliance, in the manner they calculate it, that they would be charged $5,000 until they have been in compliance for 3 consecutive months.  At that point we would consider that compliance had been substantially accomplished.
For Northern Idaho territories of U S West that have been out of compliance, would like to recommend that going forward including October, any month they don’t improve by 5 percentage points they be fined an amount (would recommend $2,500) until such time as they achieve 90% compliance for three consecutive months.  While they have shown improvement, it is a persistent problem and think customers deserve better.  There are other service problems we have to deal with and we need to make a statement somewhere that we expect quality service and we won’t be happy with anything less.
Commissioner Hansen said he wondered if for Northern Idaho if we shouldn’t extend that to a minimum of 5 months rather than 3 because they are at 68% now and if they were to improve 5% each month for 3 months it would still be below 90%.  If Southern Idaho is at 90%, wonder if Northern Idaho people should be treated equally.  Would like to propose for Northern Idaho that rather than 3 months that they have 5/6 months to get to 90%.
Commissioner Nelson said that was what he was proposing - Northern Idaho reach 90% and continue that for 3 months.
Commissioner Hansen said then he didn’t have a problem with Commissioner Nelson’s proposal.
Commissioner Smith said she didn’t disagree that this is a serious problem and it has been on-going for a long time and the penalty system proposed is probably reasonable.  She would not, however, do that at this point in time as the company is beginning November 1 to give some renumeration to customers who have been inconvenienced by the inability to serve, when they were told they would get it.  It is more productive to direct resources, both people and money to customers who have been aggrieved in the processing of their order and she is very encouraged that the company would choose to do that.  She believes that serving the customer should be the number one priority and when the don’t get that, they deserve to be compensated.  Congratulate the company for coming forward with that.  Think it is appropriate that the customers have that benefit if they aren’t served in the manner that is appropriate to them.  She won’t be signing on to the penalty order, she could be “out of the office”.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t disagree but we have been discussing this since 1991.
Commissioner Smith commented no one was aware they weren’t making this standard until eleven months ago.  She agrees it has been a condition that has been going on a long time.  But when we implemented it don’t know how competent our study was and other fact is the company is making efforts to comply and does see this as very serious and based on the charts we have seen, they had a bad summer.  Looks like they might have hit on what caused the problem and are going the other way.  Would like to see another month’s progress before saying you should anti up to the general fund.  Think it is a good plan and has provided incentive to the company.
Commissioner Hansen commented that basically if they have a system in place, they would be receiving a fine.  In the rule it states that if they fail to be within the 90%, they notify the Commission.  We met in March.  At that time thought we were generous to give them 90 days to come up with a solution.  The next 2 months we saw a downturn.  Feel it is a very serious problem and it is a concern that has to be dealt with.  Commissioner Nelson has submitted a recommendation he can support.  We are not penalizing them for previous months.  If their plan works, they will not receive a penalty.  Do have to send a message that we are concerned.
Jim Wozniak of U S West asked for clarification - said there was some difference of opinion over the formula.
Commissioner Nelson said - use the company’s formula until we had a chance to analyze it.
Jim asked if Commissioners were proposing to fine the company for the months where they achieve the 90%.
Response was no.
Jim Wozniak clarified - if company achieves 90% October, November and December, there would be no fine.
Yes.
Eileen Benner commented that she thought in the company’s formula, they prefer to not include in the 90% count, customers who have caused the outage themselves.  That is a point of contention.  Rule requires all outages to be part of the calculation.  We (staff) said that the standard should be calculated that way.
Commissioner Nelson said in reading that rule, don’t feel we want to make a decision on that.  For purposes of this decision we are going to use the company’s method.
Eileen Benner asked how and when Commissioners would like to revisit this?
Commissioner Nelson said he hadn’t thought of that.  Was not that far yet.
Commissioner Hansen said he thought that should be reconciled and we should use one set of numbers but because of the importance of making a decision right now, he supports giving the company the benefit of the doubt.  Is in favor of addressing this so there is an agreement in the number.
Commissioner Smith said she would suggest that staff might file a motion for declaratory ruling from the Commission and propose a method.  Then put it out on modified so anyone who had a comment, could say so.  Commission could then decide the issue.
5B.  Terri Carlock’s October 13, 1995 Decision Memorandum re:  Pacificorp’s Request for Authority to Issue, Sell or Exchange Debt Securities in Connection with the Discharge of the PP&L and UP&L Mortgages up to $700,000,000; Case No. PAC-S-95-3.
Approved.
Fully Submitted Matters:
6.  Idaho Power Company Rate Stability Proposal - IPC-E-95-11.
Commission President Ralph Nelson said the Commission was hoping to have something in writing today in this matter, but the press of business has kept us from meeting that.  Thought that we were far enough in the decision process to discuss that today and tell you what that decision is and issue an order at a later date.
Said he believed that it is the Commission’s decision to accept the settlement stipulation as proposed.  Thought there was a lot of work that went into that with the staff, company and intervenors.  There was give and take on both sides.  It is a fair settlement for all parties involved.  The Industrial Customers of Idaho Power objected to the part dealing with proposed relicensing legislation.  While that is of some concern to him, it is not enough concern to not accept the stipulation.  The stipulation is a matter of record.
Commissioner Hansen said he would just comment that he felt it was good for the company and good for the ratepayer.  It represents the competitive position of Idaho Power Company and it will enable them to provide quality service at the lowest possible rate.  Could have some effect to reduce the cost of future financing and maintain low rates.  He supports it.
Commissioner Smith said she agreed with Commissioner Hansen.  Was pleased the company was complimentary of the staff in proceeding with the case and in bringing all the parties together and working through the issues that resulted in a settlement.  Agreed with the Industrial customers that the relicensing legislation issue does not belong in the stipulation, for a couple of reasons.  (1)  Don’t want to imply that she or the Commission concur in this legislative proposal of the company prior to the time it is even in a form that has been discussed and proposed and (2) has a good deal of concern that if we approve the stipulation with that language in it, it says the Commission agrees with the concept so for that reason, do not think it is appropriate at this time.  Her initial thoughts on the concept that if the legislature wants to take it upon itself to devise a method for recovering these stipulated categories for the company should operate as a franchise fee and not be part of the electric rate.  Would be supported by a separate entity the Commission has no dealing in.   The uncertainty of it, the promise of rate stability ...share their concerns.
Commissioner Nelson said he shared some of the same concerns but think there was language in the stipulation that says no support or opposition to the licensing fee.
**Held discussion of the intervenor funding issue.
Meeting was adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 20th day of October, 1995.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
19951017.min